kind of left a bad taste


The animation worked really well, and I think they did a fine job of transitioning the 2D world into a 3D computer animated world. Tinker Bell also was very mischievous and loving, and the friendship between her and Liz was portrayed effectively. Liz, the little girl, was sweet and imaginative, and additionally really absorbed into her world, probably because her father was so passionately involved in his work that he seemed to have little time for her. Unfortunately, his mindset and entire profession as a scientist was vilified throughout the movie. I don't think anyone could argue that he wasn't being a jerk by forcing his small child to reject the age-appropriate world of abundant wonder that she enjoyed, but I think that stereotypes rationalist types (which I tend to identify myself as) entirely too much. I appreciate that there is a time and place for imagination, and childhood should be the time one enjoys it, and as adults we can enjoy it, get lost in it, and come back to reality when necessary. Maybe that was supposed to be the take-home idea of the movie, but that wasn't portrayed effectively. Instead, the concept of "don't understand, just believe" was conveyed as the prevailing theme, which I think is at the root of so many dangerous, anti-intellectual, and ironically heartless ideologies that have torn and continue to tear our world apart. Ok, so belief in fairies isn't going to destroy the world or do anything of the sort, and watching this movie isn't going to corrupt the masses. I just regret they couldn't have conveyed a message about rationalists that asks that we lighten up and enjoy the world of fantasy without making it seem like we are always out to murder Bambi's mom or Santa Claus.
But also realize that the movie kind of destroys its own message in the end, because it is only through direct observation that either of them knew for sure that fairies were real. Anyway, I probably just spent way too much time analysing a ridiculous movie meant for toddlers.

reply

Interesting observations. But, you're way off on who this movie was meant for and enjoyed by...five to ten year old girls is the demo on this one, not toddlers...I know this from seeing the actual research and numbers. But that aside, you're not too far off base with your struggle to understand the message...as someone intimately involved with this project I can tell you we ALL wrestled with this story point. It may not be perfect, but the kids love this little movie and when all is said and done, that's the most important thing. Good post, though!

reply

So, not to be overly argumentative here... I think the strongest part of the story is the relationship being mended between the father and daughter. That I see as a good point being made. Obviously, it had to be entertaining as well, and I think it succeeds on that level. So Kudos for that,BTW. My daughter is 2 right now, and this will probably be a favorite in her collection.

But out of curiosity, did I fail to understand the message in my criticism, or is it just a fundamental difference in philosophy at play?

reply

Ha. No you understand perfectly...we had to sidestep some of the logic of fantasy and belief in order to keep the engine of the strained father and daughter relationship (you enjoyed so much) moving the story. It's a mind bending task to keep all of the elements of a film like this in tact. But, in the end this a story created at the Walt Disney Studios...Walt was always looking over our shoulders keeping a watchful eye over his beloved fairy. Live in this world for two and a half years and you too might actually begin to believe! :) Nice chatting with you...tell your little girl that you now know one of Tinker Bell's good friends! Cheers, Bob Hilgenberg

reply

"I just regret they couldn't have conveyed a message about rationalists that asks that we lighten up and enjoy the world of fantasy without making it seem like we are always out to murder Bambi's mom or Santa Claus."

But you are.

BUGS

reply

Bambi's mother was delicious.

reply

And Santa Clause?

BUGS

reply

[deleted]

No, you're rationalization makes sense to me. I too kind of thought that it might make kids subconsciously think that it's OK to run on faith of the imaginary unseen, which has been batting 0 out of a 1000 vs rational though and evidence based rationality.

Ah well, I still liked it. And it's waaaaay better than the direct to video we got in the late 90's from the mouse house. ^_^

reply

I just saw this last night, and I thought the "Message" wasn't so much anti-science as "Don't go to extremes". The father was not portrayed as a bad man per se, it's just that he was so caught up in the "rational" world that he had no time for his own child's sense of wonder.

reply

Teaching the father to believe without seeing is how it should have been done. Didn't like that they had to resort to seeing is believing

reply

Why? Or are you someone who believes in the invisible man who lives in the sky? He's a logical adult, he would need to see it to believe it. Now, if Mr Man in the sky appeared to me I would be converted immediately, however, I have seen evidence of evolution and none of creationalism so I go with evolution.

What the hell is wrong with me, this is a kid's movie, not a deep philosphical piece of work, I need a cup of tea. And all those looking too deeply into a movie about a little girl and her Dad reconnecting need to lighten up.

I am a four eyed evil genius.

reply